I rather take issue with the notion that the living cell is not
controlled by the genome. As biosemioticians (like Marcello
Barbieri) teach us, there
are a number of codes used in biological context, and each has a
governing or controlling function within the corresponding context.
The genome
is clearly at the top of this hierarchy, with Natural Selection and
mutational variation being higher-level controls on genome.

Readability I think is well understood in terms of interactions
between classes of molecules – ATP generation for one is rather well
understood

Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware
form – i.e. DNA).
It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I
can say that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and
calendars.

To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of
unexplained control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a
ribosome? What makes anything readable to anything?

Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition
and multiplication, ...

Sense is irreducible.
From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too.

No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has
the power to make sense of it as software and the power to execute
that sense within itself as causally efficacious motive.

This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical
laws by invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does
not explain anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I
might find sense there, but in the context of criticizing mechanism,
I find that suspicious, to be frank.